I'll be interested to see if people can actually pick out which text is watermarked and which isn't once they introduce it. It won't switch "bananas" to "airplanes". It'll switch "I really enjoy eating bananas" to "I love eating bananas" or similar
I'll be interested to see if people can actually pick out which text is watermarked and which isn't once they introduce it. It won't switch "bananas" to "airplanes". It'll switch "I really enjoy eating bananas" to "I love eating bananas" or similar
That’s my point of the post … I had the feeling that the English text editing skills of Claude went significantly down in August.
I was frustrated at first not knowing what they are doing.
After I read this post, (seeing they introduced it in August) I think it has to do with the watermarking.
Try it on a paragraph … the connections between sentences feel clunky now.
I will play with it more and see if that’s really the case (the watermarking making the text edits worse).
To that point, given a corpus of writing from person A and another from person B, I have no doubt it’s easy to train a classifier to determine who wrote what. In fact I believe law enforcement agencies already have these classifiers.
The only difference here is that Anthropic is actively trying to make the watermark undetectable.
They're not trying to make the watermark undetectable, that would defeat the point of a watermark. They're making it detectable, but not make the text obviously watermarked
Undetectable by a human reader. Come on, give the post a charitable reading.